On Thu, 8 Sep 1994, John Moody wrote:
> If I am following Greg's argument correctly, then he obviously sees a
> problem I don't. Homosexuality in this passage is contrasted with
> relations with a woman. The issue is not whether they are
> married; that issue is taken up elsewhere in the text. The issue is
> simply one of the sex of the partner. It seems perfectly logical (to me,
> anyway) that the writer would prohibit all same-sex relations, and then
> be more specific in dealing with licit and illicit opposite-sex relations.
Well, what I'm trying to do is show that what you assume to be the
"issue" at issue in this passage, is in fact, not at issue. The fact
that the issue is not one of the sex of the partner is that sex with
females (from thElus) is not contrasted with sex with males (from arsEn),
according to what would be the best way in the Greek to render an idea
like the one you mentioned. If it seems *logical* to you that the writer
would prohibit all same-sex relations, then you have failed to provide an
argument to defend your interpretation of this passage. You seem to rely
entirely on your preconceived expectations about the passage, which is
not "logical" at all. What is more likely is that a writer from such
a distance in time and space would have a completely different attitude
toward sexuality and gender vocabulary than either you or I would. So
interpretation should be historically contextualized, regardless of
whether we would then want to agree or disagree with the moral import of
the passage (as many Christians, for example, would want to disagree with
OT tolerance of polygamy, or expect more rigorous punishment for rape
than Moses gives [i.e., marriage]).
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> John L. Moody Palm Beach Atlantic College
> jmoody@goliath.pbac.edu
> ___________________________________________________________
>
>
Greg Jordan
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu